Contraception Mandate Outrages Religious Groups...

[bankside]

This isn't a law that "applies to churches." This is a law that applies to employers.

A law that applied to churches would be one that regulated what they were allowed to preach about using birth control.

 

[rareboy]

I agree. I should have been more specific and said 'churches as employers'.

Even Christ has to be sick of their 2000 years of whining.

 

[bankside]

It's religious over-reach. They might as well be complaining about building codes when getting an occupancy permit for a new church. Maybe they'll demand the codes be rewritten in cubits.

Of course they have the right to preach and to advise that their adherents and/or employees not use birth control. But they can't deprive someone of employment (or insurance given as part of the tenure of that employment) because the person declines to follow the advice.

 

[palemale]

Something like 28 states already have this requirement. I'm not aware of any Catholic organizations raising a stink about it. Moreover, a majority of Catholics agree with the president on this issue.

 

[rareboy]

At the end of the day, the only reason the issue is even getting play is because it can be used against Obama.

 

[CowboyBob]

If a church wants to be an insurance company, they have to play by the rules and regulations for insurance companies.

If they wan to build cars, they have to install seat belts, air bags, etc even if they're against their religion.

If you don't want to follow the rules and regulations, then don't get into the insurance or health care game.

 

[Ninja108]

At the end of the day, the only reason the issue is even getting play is because it can be used against Obama.

Bingo,that's the only reason this is getting any airtime.

 

[Kulindahr]

Frankly, while some here seem to be fretting all the time about governments boots all over the 'churches', there are as many people out here today who are totally fucking fed up with the boots of the 'churches' all over the civil and legal rights of the citizens of the US.

As long as the churches get to butt their noses into the affairs of all citizens, then it is only fair that sometimes the citizens get to come up with a law that applies to all churches as well.

No. The government has no business passing a law that requires people to act contrary to their consciences.

Even the Roman Catholic Church gets that -- took 'em half a millennium to get there, but they do get it.

 

[Kulindahr]

This isn't a law that "applies to churches." This is a law that applies to employers.

A law that applied to churches would be one that regulated what they were allowed to preach about using birth control.

I'll grant the Roman Catholics this: they understand that actions are preaching.

They are correct that anyone engaged in any religious function, which includes helping the poor or sick or homeless, has a right to not be required to act against conscience, and those providing them with monetary support for so doing do as well.

Day care, soup kitchens, crisis centers and more are all religious activities, because they are all things the Bible calls people to do. It is not the government's job to tell churches what God said and what He didn't -- and that's exactly what this law does.

I'd like to see some bishops with balls order their dioceses to ignore the law and proceed as usual. When a few bishops go to prison, maybe people will wake up and see that the line between church and state is getting encroached, and religious freedom is in danger.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's religious over-reach. They might as well be complaining about building codes when getting an occupancy permit for a new church. Maybe they'll demand the codes be rewritten in cubits.

Of course they have the right to preach and to advise that their adherents and/or employees not use birth control. But they can't deprive someone of employment (or insurance given as part of the tenure of that employment) because the person declines to follow the advice.

Where do building codes impact conscience?

I think Rome is asininely wrong on the issue of contraception. But they are right that this is a religious issue.

 

[Kulindahr]

At the end of the day, the only reason the issue is even getting play is because it can be used against Obama.

Hardly. It wouldn't matter who pushed this, to hard-line Roman Catholics, on this issue you're an antichrist if you cross the line.

If a church wants to be an insurance company, they have to play by the rules and regulations for insurance companies.

If they wan to build cars, they have to install seat belts, air bags, etc even if they're against their religion.

If you don't want to follow the rules and regulations, then don't get into the insurance or health care game.

But according to people in this thread, they aren't allowed that choice -- they have to be insurers, so they have to follow this rule.

And if they went to fraternal insurance for members only, they wouldn't have to follow it anyway.

 

[bankside]

No. The government has no business passing a law that requires people to act contrary to their consciences.

That is the basis of law. If people's consciences motivated them to behave in the same way that just laws motivate them to behave, there would be no need for a legal system and anarcho-syndicalist utopia would prevail. (segue to Monty Python)

Where do building codes impact conscience?

I can easily see some denomination deciding after thoughtful prayer and reflection that their new church should not have an electrical outlet in the sanctuary for some obscure reason, or that a fire escape should not be allowed to be installed in x, y or z location.

 

[Kulindahr]

That is the basis of law. If people's consciences motivated them to behave in the same way that just laws motivate them to behave, there would be no need for a legal system and anarcho-syndicalist utopia would prevail. (segue to Monty Python)

No, it isn't. The basis of law is encouraging people to follow their consciences. Ninety-nine point nine percent of criminals know that what they did was wrong, they just figured they had a good reason for doing wrong or that they wouldn't get caught.

I can easily see some denomination deciding after thoughtful prayer and reflection that their new church should not have an electrical outlet in the sanctuary for some obscure reason, or that a fire escape should not be allowed to be installed in x, y or z location.

That's not what I asked. Where's the moral dimension, where conscience gets involved? There's no matter of conscience in having a ramp v three steps, or a side exit from the choir bay or loft instead of a back one.

 

[bankside]

That's not what I asked. Where's the moral dimension, where conscience gets involved? There's no matter of conscience in having a ramp v three steps, or a side exit from the choir bay or loft instead of a back one.

I understand most religious groups take it upon themselves to determine what constitutes a matter of conscience or not, in their sole discretion and within their own interpretation of their doctrines and revelations, etc.

I find this problematic, in that it can allow groups to arbitrarily opt out of conforming to requirements set down in the public interest by declaring a magic bubble of religious freedom to protect their actions.

So, I posit the existence of a denomination solemnly opposed to the building code on grounds of conscience. Insulation that's not kosher. Light switches that do not foment piety. I don't think it is a far stretch, or given how truth is often stranger than fiction, I doubt it's a stretch at all.

If there is an objective way to determine what constitutes a matter of conscience other than the self-proclaimed declaration of the "aggrieved" person, I'd like to hear it.

 

[Kulindahr]

I understand most religious groups take it upon themselves to determine what constitutes a matter of conscience or not, in their sole discretion and within their own interpretation of their doctrines and revelations, etc.

I find this problematic, in that it can allow groups to arbitrarily opt out of conforming to requirements set down in the public interest by declaring a magic bubble of religious freedom to protect their actions.

So, I posit the existence of a denomination solemnly opposed to the building code on grounds of conscience. Insulation that's not kosher. Light switches that do not foment piety. I don't think it is a far stretch, or given how truth is often stranger than fiction, I doubt it's a stretch at all.

If there is an objective way to determine what constitutes a matter of conscience other than the self-proclaimed declaration of the "aggrieved" person, I'd like to hear it.

That's why there's written scripture: it's an objective source anyone can look at and assess.

It's easy to see why Roman Catholics believe as they do -- or, more accurately, why the magisterium maintains what they do. I think they're loony, but they do have a scriptural resting place and a hefty weight of tradition.

Now, if some church came along and promulgated new scriptures from which anyone could see that they had a fair argument against building codes... well, courts have already ruled that inventing scriptures for the purpose of evading the law doesn't count. And in Christian terms, it would be a very hard sell, because arguably the first building codes came from Christians, specifically medieval monks who set down that buildings should be as safe from flood, fire, and collapse as possible (I know, some of today's denominations would regard anything from monks as antichristian, but that would mean rejecting the strictures for clean water, clean bedding, a clean kitchen....).

Interestingly, I talked with an ACLU guy once about religious freedom, and something like that was, he said, a standard they used to measure defending religious positions: did it have weight of tradition, or the feel of novelty?

 

[bankside]

Ahh but of course freedom of conscience goes well beyond christianity.

Surely you're not saying that nobody can have a position of conscience rooted in native spirituality simply because they never wrote it down.

And of course christianity would have had a feeling of novelty 2000 years ago; 1400 years ago for islam, and how long has it been since joseph smith dictated the book of mormon from within the magic hat?

Surely you're not saying that freedom of conscience only kicks in after a century or two of having no freedom of conscience? I didn't think you'd be so pro-establishment.

 

[Kulindahr]

Ahh but of course freedom of conscience goes well beyond christianity.

Surely you're not saying that nobody can have a position of conscience rooted in native spirituality simply because they never wrote it down.

And of course christianity would have had a feeling of novelty 2000 years ago; 1400 years ago for islam, and how long has it been since joseph smith dictated the book of mormon from within the magic hat?

Surely you're not saying that freedom of conscience only kicks in after a century or two of having no freedom of conscience? I didn't think you'd be so pro-establishment.

That's the way the courts tend to handle it. If the ACLU hadn't brilliantly gone to bat for the Jehovah's Witnesses back in the 60s, they would have failed on critical items because they were "novel" (having existed only since just before WW II).

And native religions/spirituality suffer from not having recorded scripture. I read of a project to write down traditions, an effort aimed partly at remedying that by assembling an authoritative source other than scholarly articles.

And yes, it's a problem discerning a real new religion from something trumped up by people trying to avoid a law. Different courts have tried different tests, ranging from "widespread movement" to "profundity" to "moral depth"; none have stood up because higher courts tend to find that any test constitutes defining a religion, which is or at least verges on an establishment of religion.... But the test I recall is that if a sudden new religion gives evidence of being focused on enabling citizens to escape a standing obligation or duty of citizens, it gets hashed. I suppose that if a group concocted some scriptures and a generation later "discovered" some obligation, they might get away with it -- it would be fun to see, anyway.



I'm thinking at this point that the rule as chosen by Obama's people violates the RFRA, which requires a compelling state interest to overrule religious practice, and adds a second test that the law not heavily burden religious practice.

 

[bankside]

That's the way the courts tend to handle it. If the ACLU hadn't brilliantly gone to bat for the Jehovah's Witnesses back in the 60s, they would have failed on critical items because they were "novel" (having existed only since just before WW II).

Funny it was the Jehova's here who fought persecution by the corrupt provincial government of Maurice Duplessis and laid the foundation for the Quiet Revolution that swept away four centuries of state Catholicism in Quebec. This wave of modernisation and secularisation realigned the whole country permanently, and probably accounts for a lot of the differing political intuitions and outcomes compared to the States…though Harper is trying his best to undo all that.

And native religions/spirituality suffer from not having recorded scripture. I read of a project to write down traditions, an effort aimed partly at remedying that by assembling an authoritative source other than scholarly articles.

That may not be well received by many elders who would suggest the traditions would suffer more under the dead hand of the written word than in the spark passed through oral tradition. I can't say I'm convinced they're right, but it is hard to argue a certain dynamism in spiritual thought that arises from new conversation rather than from debating a fixed set of words laid down centuries before.

From another thread:

Come now Kuli, not even the tea party whackadoodles are that crazy.

I don't share your optimism. They want to roll back work hour limitations, eliminate the minimum wage, do away with OSHA, get rid of the department of labor, shut down the EPA, and more.

So, you do appear to endorse that government has an obligation to regulate working conditions and terms of employment.

Yet, above in this thread you wanted to debate the reasonableness of minimum wage when I used it as a precedent to support the obligatory provision of health care.

 

[frankfrank]

If the law had instead said that medical facilities operated by churches (such as Catholic hospitals) were exempt from the rule, other people would say that is contrary to the "separation of Church and State" - because it's legally giving a special law to churches.

So, have it one way and one group of people will say that the law violates that principle. Have it the other way and another group of people will say the same thing.

But what I'm waiting for, and I fully expect that the Republican candidates will often use this argument blatantly in their campaigns...there will be the argument that says:

SEE? We told you so! Look how the new Obama law is forcing the churches to include abortion in their insurance policies! (OK, this is about CONTRACEPTION, not abortion, but I *know* that they'll lie and throw abortion into this argument.) NOW do you see why we cannot possibly abide with a repeal of DOMA? Dat lib'rul DEMOCRAT Party will throw clergy into prison if they don't perform gay marriages! Vote Republican!

Yeah, I can definitely see this coming.

 

[Kulindahr]

^
"Coming"?

It's already happening -- at least three major organizations for right-wingers have done emailings on this. It's part of "Obama's war on Christianity", don't'cha know.